It seems mostly adequate, upon critical reflection, to conclude that Porphyria's Lover commits this murder by the craze of his mind; however, I feel that it is unjust to assume that madness is the narrator's primary motivation. Browning's biography makes us aware of the suggested intent behind his writing, claiming "the impossibility of ever finding a coherent or truthful narrative and the importance of recognizing the relativity of points of view"(711). In light of this, I hope within my interpretation to contend with conventional morality's claim that murder is unanimously unjustified.
The foundation for my interpretation lies in accepting that the female character's name is an allusion to porphyria as a rare disorder that relentlessly poisons both the body and mind. In other words, porphyria is Porphyria's affliction. It is that which defines death as her "utmost will".
It is the lack of dialogue and indifference within the voice of the narrator that seems to render him a bit unaffected by having murdered his love, but it is through the action of the poem that the narrator's truly grievous sentiments become clear. The reader is throughout the poem made aware of the narrator's love for Porphyria. He lies nestled against her shoulder, consumed by her flowing yellow hair, as if aching to be one with her. Representative of his conflicted feelings, he strangles Porphyria with the very hair he so adores, because he, in that very moment, realizes its effectiveness in accomplishing what they are both aching for: the severance of her soul from the wicked, earthly pains of her affliction. He vanquishes not only Porphyria's life but also her suffering, and in doing so has committed a most pristine act of love. In the aftermath of the fateful moment, the two lovers sit motionless together throughout the night, the lingering airs of deep affection hung still over the scene:
"And thus we sit together now,
And all night long we have not stirred"
What are your thoughts? Which of the narrator's motivations do you feel are most significant: madness, mercy, or something different entirely? Am I misled in assuming that mercy by euthanasia justifies Porphyria's murder?
I agree with your analysis of porphyria being the disease causing mental disassociation. I also think the mention of Browning's idea of perspective is particularly important in this poem. That being said, I interpreted it that the narrator was the one afflicted with the disease and his murdering of Porphyria is meant to show both his disconnect with human morality and illuminate his madness. Though the poem is somewhat lyrical and the language is very purpose driven, i do not feel any sort of animosity towards the narrator because I feel that he either doesn't know that what he has done is wrong or has done it, like you said, in an act of supreme love and passion.
ReplyDeleteIt does appear that the narrator is showing the symptoms of the disease, including muscle weakness (she moves his arm for him), sensitivity to light (he is sitting in the dark when she arrives), and paranoia, hallucination and derangement of the mind. Perhaps he has come to imagine that his lover *is* his disease, and thus in killing her, he has freed himself from it. It is possible that Browning was playing on the blood disease, even though it wasn't scientifically labeled porphyria until the late 19th century. But perhaps there is another interpretation as well which can help answer the question of madness v. mercy: if her name merely signifies "purple" (from the Greek), what might this suggest? What might it be that keeps Porphyria from giving herself to her lover? Lines 23-4 suggest that "pride, and vainer ties" are the problem: what does Browning suggest here? What does it suggest that she has left "tonight's gay feast" to visit him in a dark, cold cottage?
ReplyDeleteFor more on this debate over the significance of Porphyria, see the Victorian Web: http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/rb/porphyria/